don't beano denard
obviously, and understandably, everybody is excited about denard. i get that. if he were my team's qb, i'd be giddy. his talent is undeniable and his performance against u conn was impressive. i won't be the slightest bit surprised if he scorches nd's defense this weekend. but, the expectations for denard are rapidly approaching the stratosphere of absurdity. while talking michigan football with a michigan fan (reasonable, skeptical. and has seen lots of practice) the upshot was that denard was like pat white...only faster...and a better passer. which is not that far removed from denard as the leading heisman candidate or denard as a combination of desmond howard's legs and tom brady's upper body...
what follows is going to sound like sour grapes/rain on the parade/trolling/denard bashing, etc. instead, its cautionary advice from an nd fan who has learned how even the most obvious appearances can be devestatingly deceiving in college football. i've been convinced either that our team or that a certain player was destined for greatness repeatedly and...its been a very long time since any of those convictions became reality.
a reminder of things that denard has yet to do as a starter:
Opponent Quality
1. Play a team with more than one 4 star recruit on defense
2. Play a team that has produces more than one nfl player/year over the last 5 years
3. Play a team in a major conference
4. Play a team that was in the top 50 in total defense last year
5. Play a team that had a decent run defense last year
Opponent Preparation
1. Play a team that has seen meaningful game film of him
2. Succeed when a team actually takes away anything that is working
3. Succeed against a team that overloads the box to minimize the running game
Situation
1. Play when he's dinged up
2. Play from behind
3. Respond to a mistake
4. Play on the road
5. Play in a big game
and on and on...which is all to say that its only one game. it was a historically great game, but, of all the small sample size fallacies, nothing is more wrong than believing something to be true on the basis of one game.
of the many cautionary tales i could mention i'll go to the wayback machine...ron powlus. incredibly hyped both in recruiting and in practice. his first game against northwestern he went 18/24 for 291 yards and 4 tds for an offense that thought the entire purpose of the forward pass was to keep the safeties out of the box. it was probably the best game of his 4 year college career. at about this point, beano said he was destined for 3 heismans. powlus serves as a cautionary tale not only about how much we can be misled, but about how expectations may cause harm. did powlus just flop or was he drug down by the weight of impossible expectations. i've always thought it was a little of both.
proposed definition: "to beano" - to set expectations at such an impossibly high level that not only are fans disappointed regardless of performance but those expectations causally limit your ability to meet them.
so, don't beano denard. (alternatively, if you do beano denard make sure that the effect kicks in within the next 72 hours...) denard is almost certainly going to be good. he may turn out to be great. he may even win 3 heismans. but, you're not going to help his chances by setting expectations at impossibly high levels.
and with that i'll let the negging commence...
September 7th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^
Who's setting the bar so high? Other than idiots in the media. Im just happy he performed well in his first ever start, regardless of the competition
September 7th, 2010 at 5:04 PM ^
I said it before the season started and I will say it again, Dernard is the most electrifying runner in the Big 10 and possibly in the country! Great defenses also make mistakes and he has the type of ability to take it to the house every time he takes off no matter who is on the other side.
I for one was very surprised at how accurate he was. I hope that he will continue to be so accurate through out the season but I know that when healthy, he will continue to be a threat to take it to the house every time he tucks it. Powlus was no where near as tuff as this kid and he damn sure didn't have the natural talent that Dernard has. No comparison,GO BLUE!!!!!
September 7th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^
damn you and your logical approach to football. You're right though. Take it for what it was: a good game. We need to see more before the jury reaches a verdict.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:36 PM ^
I heard Denard was looking to put up bigger numbers in South Bend than he did last week...
September 7th, 2010 at 3:34 PM ^
...won't be able to do that this week
September 7th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
How do I plus one? Yeah I'm a n00b. F*ck off.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:11 PM ^
Wait until you get to 25 points and then you can vote.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
Thanks.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
You must wait patiently for the opportunity young one. In time you will be able to +1.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:14 PM ^
Edit: Damn too slow again.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:32 PM ^
I don't disagree. But I'm not sure it's the Mgoblog (or UM) community that is beano'ing Denard, but rather ESPN, the media, and hell, maybe even Beano himself (he DID supposedly pick OSU v. UM in the MNC game ;) )
So, Beano, don't Beano!
September 7th, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^
this Saturday.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
UConn is a BCS team. While the Big East won't terrify opponents with brand recognition, I'd still call them a major conference.
He definitely played portions of that game dinged up.
While it may not have been a huge national story, as far as importance to the Michigan program, Saturday's game was huge.
That said, I don't disagree with your overall concept. That game was impressive, but I think we, as Michigan fans, need to keep our expectations in check until we've seen more.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
"Shift" + "Any letter" = "Capital letter"
Give it a try!
September 7th, 2010 at 3:38 PM ^
that key does?
/sarcasm
September 7th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^
Where's the "any" key? I don't see any "any" key.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:35 PM ^
and to hell with Notre Dame.
I saw one of the better performances in Michigan history on Saturday and I like this wonderful bubble of happiness regarding a game performance that has been sorely missing over the last three years.
Who knows if the level of play can be maintained, but damn it, in my mind it's there at least until 3:30 this Saturday.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:37 PM ^
and we (and by we I mean reasonable-minded fans) are treating it as such. We wanted to see if DRob could manage the offense, throw the ball accurately, run the read option and limit trunovers. He did all of these things very effectively. Whether or not UCONN will be a good team, or if ND will be a better test for UM remains to be seen, but there is reason to be excited as a UM fan.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^
well said. I would add that it will be interesting to see if this performance from Denard was median - meaning that he is capable of playing like this every week, or if this was an outlier, that Denard just happened to play the game of his life in his opener. From all the replays I've seen, it's really hard to tell and it could plausibly be either, however I do think it will be challenging for any team to keep Denard from having 75+ rushing yards in a single game.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:44 PM ^
Denard had a great performannce and the offense looked the best it has in over 2 years under his leadership. Will Denard be a heisman candidate, probably not this year, but it remains to be seen what his potential is in the up coming weeks. Bottom line is, he did his job and played well last Saturday. Therefore, I think I speak for all UM fans when I say that we're getting more excited about this team with every passing moment. Great game Denard!! GO BLUE!!
September 7th, 2010 at 3:45 PM ^
Continue to destroy people.
September 7th, 2010 at 3:56 PM ^
I don't think anyone is trying to Beano Denard.
We're definitely Holtzing the shit out of him though!
September 7th, 2010 at 4:09 PM ^
Is that a picture of David Hasselhoff? He looks like his face is buttered.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:26 PM ^
I have taken all of these things into account. While it's true that The Denard and the forces of light have not taken on a top notch defense thus far, it is also true that The Denard, come saturday, WILL be the fastest player on the field. There is also no guarantee that Notre Dames' defense is able to contain a legitimate offense either. When UConn loaded the box, The Denard hit them for 10-20 yards through the air. This happened repeatedly.
It should be a good game next week. My optimism for the Denard's future is appropriate to the data we have. This game could go either way, As Notre Dame is most certainly better equipped to take advantage of our porous back seven.
41-38 Michigan.
To Hell with Notre Dame. Beat the Irish.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:30 PM ^
You're right, generally, but I think you're wrong about these:
"3. Play a team in a major conference"
As someone pointed out above, the Big East is a BCS conference, and is (was?) expected to do well. Would it have been a better win if we played Mississippi or Vandy? I don't think so. You'd have been better off just saying "a ranked team."
"3. Succeed against a team that overloads the box to minimize the running game"
If I recall correctly, UConn tried, and it didn't work well. Loading the box is dangerous if you're also looking at four or five receivers. Of course it works sometimes, but it isn't a guaranteed fix by any stretch.
"5. Play in a big game"
It might seem kind of silly to a non-UM fan, given Michigan's history, but UConn was a big game. It was more than a big game--it was a huge game.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
first, they are all big games.
second, a Notre Dame fan saying UConn isn't a big game should probably review last year's UConn/ND result and then determine whether or not Notre Dame can be considered a big game.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:50 PM ^
yes, nd collapsed in the 2nd half. there is no arguing about that. uconn was a pretty good team last year in a decent conference. but, that loss had much more to do with notre dame sucking than it did with uconn shining. we also lost to navy, for christ's sake. the big east is clearly little brother to the sec, big10, big12 and pac10. i don't think anybody argues too hard with that general assessment. the big east didn't have much in the way of out of conference wins last year.
look at uconn's 2009 results: http://www.fbschedules.com/ncaa-09/big-east/2009-connecticut-huskies-football-schedule.php
the only remotely "major" win last year was against notre dame. their biggest successes were close losses to the top of the big east.
i think michigan fans went a bit out of their way to build uconn up before the game as a defense mechanism against all that could go wrong. nothing wrong with that, i would have done the same thing. uconn is well-coached. they play solid football, but their talent level is nowhere near the big boys and their successes have mostly come against clearly lesser competition.
September 7th, 2010 at 5:42 PM ^
Denard shouldn't have to worry about being overhyped for Saturday either. Because ND doesn't really fit any of your 5 categories for a "real team" either.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:44 PM ^
do you think i was trying to generate a comprehensive list of qualities of good teams? i was politely pointing out that before denard will ever realize the high expectations being set for him, he'll have to accomplish a lot of things that he hasn't yet accomplished, many of which are non-trivial.
i didn't at any point argue that nd is a good team...because, well, we've only played one game...
September 7th, 2010 at 6:27 PM ^
UCONN also lost to several very good teams (better than ND) last year by the thinnest of margins... Cinci, Pitt, NC... NTM their decisive bowl win over SC.
Their schedule was actually pretty respectable and all of their losses add up to less than the 20 we beat them by (by 5 FWIW) .
It wasn't Michigan fans building up UCONN. Virtually everyone was expecting them to be good and have a decent shot at winning the BE... I wouldn't be surprised if they still do.
It's the Michigan haters and pessimistic "fans" that all of a sudden seem to be jumping on the "UCONN actually sucks" wagon.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:49 PM ^
deleted duplicate post...
September 7th, 2010 at 4:34 PM ^
while nd's defense is likely improved, i think denard is going to put points up on them. even allowing for the horror that is michigan's secondary, nd's offense looked like it has a ways to go before it is hitting on all cylinders. consequently, i foresee nd drives sputtering to an end a bit more frequently than michigan drives.
this is one year where i'd much rather play michigan late in the season - after our offense has had a chance to gel and when denard is dealing with the physical and psychological effects of getting pounded for a whole season...
September 7th, 2010 at 4:35 PM ^
Proposed definition of "Powlus": to argue that early indication of a player's ability or improvement is a mirage that subsequent performance will fail to duplicate. This inductive argument is fallacious because it is based solely on the failure of overhyped Notre Dame recruits to be worth a shit.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:41 PM ^
Is terrritory dominated by Notre Dame. I second this assertion.
Notre Dame has been subject to gross overhype due to media whores playing to their absurdly large fanbase. This happens in every aspect of their football program, including:
-Recruits
-Current Players
-Coaches
-Team in General.
-The very RULES of the BCS.
In light of all this, the point is invalid. Your experience of college football is tempered by the fact that you have yet to field a dominating football team in recent memory. Your stats are inflated by a slew of non-conference Baby Seal U's. You 'Powlus' every good player you have. The play on the field merely reveals the extent of Notre Dames yearly overestimation of themselves.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:52 PM ^
so, there has never been a michigan player whose career didn't live up to early expectations? of course there have been. forcier is probably joining that list right now. i'd go on, but i'm just going to piss you off.
the point is that unrealistic expectations are conceivably harmful in themselves.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:58 PM ^
Allow me to apologize for taking a confrontational tone. I got caught up in the pregame build up.
I just have this memory of being a kid, and tailgating at the Notre Dame game. There was this fan in my class, and when we won it was utterly delicious. Pathetic, that I still hold that memory, I know. But there it is.
I think it's true that we are guilty of 'Powlusing' some players. I just think Notre Dame is more guilty.
September 7th, 2010 at 5:38 PM ^
fuckin' ruled, dude.
September 7th, 2010 at 5:45 PM ^
I don't remember him being predicted for Heismans, but in any case someone who set all the Big Ten all-time return records was probably one of the crappiest examples you could have come up with. And he's "underachieving" a lot less in the NFL than any ND WR in recent memory.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:29 PM ^
that your whole argument is basically Ron Powlus, plus some shit about what Denard hasn't done or seen.
That argument, like Powlus himself, sucks. What you ignore is that Denard did play pretty extensively last year, at times very effectively (see Iowa game) despite being a one dimensional player. He was a freshman, and very unpolished as a passer, so he was inconsistent. But he has gotten better. All practice reports, spring game, etc. have pointed to this improvement. Now, we have some tangible game evidence to verify the practice reports.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:40 PM ^
my point was that absurd expectations may have harmed ron powlus's career. denard's u conn performance is creating similar absurd expectations given that we're just talking about one game. consequently, it would make sense to measure one's expectations until denard has done more than win a single football game because powlus-level absurd expectations may harm his career.
i could hardly have been more complementary of denard. i've not made any prediction about what he's going to turn into other than to say that he'll probably be good and could be great.
September 7th, 2010 at 6:47 PM ^
Some succeed, some don't. Chad Henne played well right off the bat, raising expectations to a ridiculous level, then proceeded to have a great career. Why wasn't he Beano'd?
I doubt very much that fan expectation level correlates very strongly with on field success, and if it does, then it is probably a positive correlation. Because, you know, fans usually have high expectations of good players (recruits with stars, players who play well early).
Sometimes, though, they have high expectations of Ron Powlus. Which as you point out, doesn't pan out.
September 7th, 2010 at 8:34 PM ^
why do some fail in the face of high expectations while other thrive? i'm not at all sure, but i'd propose that part of the explanation is in the ratio of expectations to accomplishments.
when henne took the field as a true freshman, my recollection is that there wasn't much expected of him. it was his job to hand it off, not turn it over and michigan fans were just praying that he wasn't going to kill them. over the course of the season he soundly exceeded those expectations and thus expectations emerged for future seasons. by the time he faced significant expectations, though, he already knew how to handle himself on the field - he had a season of success under his belt and had established belief in his abilities.
most qbs who start early in their college careers actually face rather modest expectations and have little asked of them. when t. pryor or v. young showed an occasional flash of brilliance, as freshman, the reaction was surprise. jimmy clausen had a miserable first season behind a terrible line, and the expectations generated by hype were trumped by his performance.
the similarity between powlus and denard is that both were faced with extremely high expectations before they ever really did a whole lot on the field. there was hype, rumors of brilliance in practice and one good game...then the expectations went through the roof.
think about how you'd react differently in slightly different scenarios:
scenario 1:
game 1 - denard runs for 75 yards on 15 carries and is 12/19 for 140 yards passing. michigan wins handily..
game 2 - denard runs for 75 yards on 15 carries, is 12/19 for 150 yards passing against slightly better talent and turns it over twice. michigan loses a close game.
scenario 2:
game 1 - denard runs for 190 yards on 29 carries, is 19/22 passing for 190 yards! michigan wins handily.
game 2 - denard runs for 75 yards on 15 carries, is 12/19 for 150 yards passing against slightly better talent and turns it over twice. michigan loses a close game.
i suspect that in scenario 1, you wouldn't be nearly as disappointed with denard after game 2 as you are in scenario 2. i can certainly imagine that the board traffic is going to be much more depressing in scenario 2. the part that's a little crazy is that denard's net performance is vastly better in the scenario where the disappointment level is higher. of people who have succeeded, more is expected. but, "success" as defined by one game is a thin definition of success and runs the risk of misleading...
September 8th, 2010 at 10:13 AM ^
...and the flaw in your argument. The difference between Henne handling it, and Powlus not? Powlus had all the hype before he ever took a college snap. The Beano line came before he had played, at all. In Henne's case, and Denard's, it's all coming after they have shown something on the field. Is it possible for a guy to play well, never develop fully, or crash and burn? Sure. But it's far more likely that a guy who has never shown anything never achieves anything much.
September 8th, 2010 at 11:53 AM ^
henne had expectations after he did it on the field for a year, by which time it was a reasonable inference that he would continue to do it. denard has done it on the field for one game and it is not yet a reasonable inference to conclude that he's going to keep doing it on the field. that's why the powlus comparison is relevant...he did it on the field for one game as well.
the other differentiating variable is the magnitude of henne-expectations were never as great as the denard/powlus expectations. its been interesting to look at the replies to this post - very few people have suggested that expectations shouldn't be as high as they are - many have suggested they should be higher.
after a year, henne was expected to be a very good qb. after one game, denard is expected to be better than pat white.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:45 PM ^
And we'll know more about Robinson after he plays ND. You guys have a better defense than UConn, I believe. Also, it will only be his second start and his first on the road. I thought the heisman talk for Forcier last year was premature just like it is for Robinson.
However, I think we are in good shape against ND as long as we can contain the ND running game. Even if Robinson has a bad game, we have the latest ND killer sitting on the sideline behind the top dual threat freshman in the country.
But after last year when our 4-0 season disintegrated, I think most of us here are cautiously optimistic.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:46 PM ^
And we'll know more about Robinson after he plays ND. You guys have a better defense than UConn, I believe. Also, it will only be his second start and his first on the road. I thought the heisman talk for Forcier last year was premature just like it is for Robinson.
However, I think we are in good shape against ND as long as we can contain the ND running game. Even if Robinson has a bad game, we have the latest ND killer sitting on the sideline behind the top dual threat freshman in the country.
But after last year when our 4-0 season disintegrated, I think most of us here are cautiously optimistic.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:53 PM ^
I think there should be a rule against rebutting replies to your original post. You send it out there and let it ride itself out.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
That would be silly. This is a place for fans to have conversations. Preventing the OP from replying would make those conversations one-sided.
September 7th, 2010 at 4:59 PM ^
didn't mean to. may have put an intended response in the main thread itself...